Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40468465›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2025

Periprosthetic joint infection of megaprostheses for oncologic and non-oncologic indications-IMPLANT retention or removal? A retrospective cohort study of 50 cases.

Benjamin Schlossmacher, Elena Strasser, Vincent Lallinger, Florian Pohlig, Ruediger von Eisenhart-Rothe, Igor Lazic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Benjamin SchlossmacherDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, TUM Universitaetsklinikum, Ismaninger Str. 22, München, 81675, Germany. benjamin.schlossmacher@mri.tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-7115-9224
Elena StrasserDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, TUM Universitaetsklinikum, Ismaninger Str. 22, München, 81675, Germany.
Vincent LallingerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, TUM Universitaetsklinikum, Ismaninger Str. 22, München, 81675, Germany.
Florian PohligDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, TUM Universitaetsklinikum, Ismaninger Str. 22, München, 81675, Germany.
Ruediger von Eisenhart-RotheDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, TUM Universitaetsklinikum, Ismaninger Str. 22, München, 81675, Germany.
Igor LazicDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, TUM Universitaetsklinikum, Ismaninger Str. 22, München, 81675, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposePeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating but rare complication. Its incidence ranges between 1%-2% in primary arthroplasties. However, infection rates are much higher in megaprostheses (15%-43%). Revision of megaprostheses (MP) is a highly complex procedure associated with massive bone loss, so that implant retention occurs as a viable initial therapy option even in chronic infections. Unfortunately, literature regarding therapy strategies and outcome reports for PJI in MP is scarce. Reinfection rates are reported to be between 22 and 58%. We therefore proposed the following questions: What is the overall outcome of PJI in MP in our cohort, and are there significant differences in infection-free survival between various surgical strategies?

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 50 cases of PJI in MP treated from 2010 to 2022 were identified. The median (IQR) age was 70.5 (16.3) years. Mean follow-up was 19.0 months. Treatment outcome was categorized following international consensus criteria.

resultsOverall infection-free implant survival was 42.0%. 7 patients died in direct association with the ongoing PJI, and 7 had to undergo amputation. Two-stage revision had the highest success rate of 71.4% (5/7), followed by multi-stage surgery (57.1%; 4/7), DAIR (38.7%; 12/31), and single-stage revision (0%; 0/5) (P = 0.009). Overall, treatment success rates following DAIR were 55.6% (10/18) for acute and 15.4% (2/13) for chronic infections (P = 0.027). The most common pathogens were coagulase-negative Staphylococci (42.0%; 21/50) and Staphylococcus aureus (34.0%; 17/50). Gram-negative pathogens accounted for 16.0% (8/50).

conclusionsPJI in MP remains a devastating complication with low success rates. Two-stage revision is the most promising treatment option, but it requires patients to be able to cope with the burden of multiple surgeries. DAIR cannot be recommended as a definitive treatment for chronic cases (15% success rate) and should be questioned in acute cases (56% success rate), as infection eradication is rare. DAIR can be considered a low-impact surgery for infection control if more extensive surgery is not viable. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyDAIRMegaprosthesesPeriprosthetic joint infectionRevision arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID40468465
PMCPMC12139102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.